Too Much TV: Why I Won't Be Covering 'Harry Potter And The Philosopher’s Stone'

Here’s everything you need to know about the world of television for Friday, March 27th, 2026:

IN THE END, WE ALL DECIDE WHICH LINES WE WON'T CROSS
There have been a lot of discussion in recent years about the challenging relationship between terrible people and the art they create. It's one of the mysteries of the universe, but being an evil person doesn't mean you aren't also capable of creating great beauty. And that is the core question for all audiences. Can you still consume, enjoy and support works done by people whose behavior goes against your moral beliefs? If you wouldn't tolerate that behavior from a friend or family member, why should you overlook it when it comes from your favorite creator?

It's a complex question and the answer ends up being a very personal one. Some people are absolutists: if something comes from a person who has exhibited terrible behavior, that person and their work is dead to them. And on the other end of the spectrum are those fans who are able to completely separate art from the people who created it. 

However, most of us fall somewhere in the middle of this quandary. We make decisions on what we'll watch and who'll we support based on our own moral compass. What can we do to support the other people associated with the project while still denying attention to this unpleasant person?

I have settled on what I internally call the "Cosby Rule." Bill Cosby is a convicted sex offender and I would be fine with him being sued into oblivion. But I still watch The Cosby Show because none of the people associated with that series knew at the time that he was a tool when they were doing it. I wouldn't watch a new show with Cosby in it and anyone who would agree to participate deserve all the dismissive scorn that would be headed their way.

And that tends to be my comfort threshold for bad behavior. Was it created before most people would have known the truth? Many people still watch reruns of Buffy, even after knowing about the things going on behind the scenes. If that knowledge ruins the show for you, I understand. Everyone has their own individual comfort threshold when it comes to things such as sexual misconduct.

I am lucky in that I work for myself. I am responsible for my decision making when it comes to what I will and won't cover. As I wrote about last week, I turned down a bunch of money from one of the prediction markets because I find their business model distasteful and it felt as if taking that money was tacitly giving my approval to their work. And I can also apply my "Cosby Rule" when it comes to deciding whether or not I'll cover a show that has someone connected with it that I find to be abhorrent. 

For instance, last December I wrote a piece explaining why I wasn't going to cover the new Paramount series Tony & Ziva. It wasn't a decision I made lightly. I enjoy Michael Weatherly's acting and there was a fair amount of commercial pressure to cover a high-profile show.

But when Weatherly was starring in Bull, the series he did immediately after leaving NCIS, he was accused of sexual misconduct towards actress Eliza Dushku that was so distasteful she ended up receiving a $9.5 million settlement from CBS:

“I was told that the role would be a six-year commitment to play a smart, strong leading lady, a confident high-powered lawyer meant to counterbalance the existing male lead, and that the role had been written specifically with me in mind,” Dushku said. “However, in my first week on my new job I found myself the brunt of crude, sexualized and lewd verbal assaults. I suffered near constant sexual harassment from my co-star. This was beyond anything I had experienced in my 30-year career.”

She didn’t refer to Weatherly by name, but she added that the male co-star “frequently referred to me as ‘legs.’ He would smell me and leeringly look me up and down. Off script, in front of about 100 crew members and cast members, he once said that he would take me to his rape van and use lube and long phallic things on me and take me over his knee and spank me like a little girl. Another time he told me that his sperm were powerful swimmers.”

Dushku alleged that after speaking to the co-star about toning down his comments, he texted the head of CBS Studios and she was fired the next day. She added that she was silenced by the arbitration clause in her contract.

The behavior was bad enough, but Weatherly has never really apologized for his behavior or taken responsibility for his actions. Instead, he issued one of those wishy-washing celebrity half apologies and his career went on with little or no impact.

"When Eliza told me that she wasn't comfortable with my language and attempt at humor, I was mortified to have offended her and immediately apologized," he stated. "After reflecting on this further, I better understand that what I said was both not funny and not appropriate, and I am sorry and regret the pain this caused Eliza."

So when Tony & Ziva came out, I felt as if I couldn't cover a show helmed by someone who is unwilling to take responsibility for behavior he admits took place. I understand the career implications for him if had done so. But at least then I wouldn't be thinking about the "rape van" every time I watched the show.

And I feel the same way when it comes to the upcoming HBO Max series Harry Potter And The Philosopher’s Stone. The streamer has gone to great lengths to distance itself from  J.K. Rowling, but the series is based on her books and she will making a substantial amount of money from the project. 

I am not going to go over all of Rowling's distasteful comments here, they are easy enough to find if you're unaware of the issue. But she doesn't just hold beliefs I deeply find offensive, it's also that she has used her fame and substantial wealth to bully and harass critics. And given that, it seems hypocritical of me to cover a show that is only going to provide her with yet another platform and even more resources to be a loud-mouthed asshat.

Maybe you're a Harry Potter fan and it doesn't matter. Or maybe you agree with her comments. If so, and if you want to learn more about the show, there are plenty of outlets that will be covering it.

And to be clear, I don't blame any of the journalists who will have to write about the show. If you are a freelancer or working for an editor who wants it covered, you can't afford to burn bridges and decline to do the work. But that's also why I think it's important for people like myself who have the ability to say no to do so when we can.

I might annoy some people at HBO Max and maybe lose out on some advertising. But at a time when there are so many great people in the industry doing work that deserves to be highlighted, why would I waste my time on someone who seems to delight in making people she doesn't agree with so unhappy?

SPEAKING OF THINGS I TRY AND STAY AWAY FROM
I absolutely loathe spending time on Twitter/X anymore. Aside from Elon Musk and the way the platform pushes far right accounts into my timeline, unless you pay the monthly fee or are someone X wants to keep active on the web site (for instance, journalists with verified accounts), no one will see your tweets, not even most of the people who follow you. And given that X also pushes down any link from Substack, it's pointless for me to post there.

I've tried a bunch of other options and am now primarily posting on Bluesky (my account there is toomuchtv.substack.com). I've seen the complaints about Bluesky and tbh, most of the problem is that Bluesky operates differently than other social media. It has a chronological feed, which means if you want to make sure everyone sees something, you'll want to repost it after a few hours have passed, for those people who missed it the first time.

The other difference is that what you see in your feed is determined by who you are following. If you aren't seeing what you want, you'll want to do a bit of strategic following and unfollowing. One way to find people is by subscribing to one or more of the themed "Starter Packs" that people have put together. Those packs are groups of accounts that are posting similar content: Book lovers, fans of the Chicago Bears, indie media accounts.

Bluesky also allows you to block people from quote tweeting you or you can separate their quote tweet from your original message. So if a user looks at their message, they can't see your message. It helps cut down on the dunking. 

I'm posting this in hopes that I can convince some of you to try it. I'm not trying to convince you to drop Twitter/X (although you really should). But spend a bit of time on Bluesky and see if it leaves you feeling a bit more optimistic about social media. It's not perfect, but if I've learned one thing over the course of my life is that the world is filled with annoying people. At least online you can block them forever.

ODDS AND SODS
* Here is a complete rundown of every new original TV show, movie and documentary coming to Netflix in April.

* Season two of Women in Blue (Las Azules) premieres Wednesday, August 12th on Apple TV.

* PBS has launched a PBS documentary channel on YouTube. It will feature documentary storytelling and short docs from Independent Lens, POV, BBC Studios, Reel South, and Voces, science and history specials created for the PBS National Programming Schedule, as well as digital-first content from PBS Digital Studios. By the end of the year, the channel will include 100+ full-length documentaries.

* BET and Paramount+ have renewed The Ms. Pat Show for a sixth season.

* The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and AEG have announced a landmark multi-year partnership that includes L.A. LIVE becoming the new home of the Oscars, beginning in 2029.

* The Independent is reporting that Kalshi and Polymarket are using female lifestyle influencers to convince young women to gamble on their prediction platforms.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REWRITING A PRESS RELEASE AND ASKING SOME QUESTIONS
You might have read a story or two in the Hollywood trades that a new spin-off has been announced for the Jeopardy! YouTube channel. But as Dan Barrett notes in his Always Be Watching newsletter, the coverage of the announcement left so many obvious questions unanswered:

The problem with this news story is that there was clearly a media release sent out that wasn’t entirely clear on what this is. So, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety seemingly just did a rewrite with no effort made to flesh it out with important details.

So, here I am with a bunch of questions that should have been answered in the original article:

• The spin-off episode will be hosted by Ken Jennings. Will he be hosting further episodes of the spin-off?

• Will there even be further episodes, or is this just a random special used to drive attention to the Jeopardy! YouTube channel which will soon have some other original content.

• There will be three “initial contestants” in the form of Monét X Change, Rebecca Black, and Brennan Lee Mulligan. All big on YouTube. But will further episodes, should there be any, also be relying on YouTube talent?

Imagine being happy putting a byline on this…

TWEET OF THE DAY